| People v King |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04413 [73 AD3d 1083] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald King, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter,J.), rendered June 16, 2008, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault inthe first degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (twocounts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On October 20, 2006, the then-16-year-old defendant and two unapprehended accomplicesaccosted a young married couple walking in their neighborhood in Maspeth, Queens. After theassailants took the couple's money and ATM cards at gunpoint, the husband resisted beingseparated from his pregnant wife and one of the assailants shot him in the head. Several daysafter the shooting, the wife identified the defendant as the gunman in a photograph and in asubsequent line-up. The husband survived with resulting complications, including that the bulletcannot be removed from his brain without causing additional damage.
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree,assault in the first degree, three counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of robbery in thesecond degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The Supreme Courtsentenced the defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment of 22 years and a five-yearperiod of postrelease supervision for each count of attempted murder, first-degree assault, andfirst-degree robbery, and to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years and a five-yearperiod of postrelease supervision on each count of second-degree robbery and criminalpossession of a weapon, with all terms to be served concurrently.
The Supreme Court's determination that the facially race-neutral reasons for the defendant'speremptory challenges to two particular jurors were pretextual "is entitled to great deference onappeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, [such determination] is supported by the record"(People v Scott, 70 AD3d 978,980 [2010]; see People v Fortunato,59 AD3d 735 [2009]; People vBoston, 52 AD3d 728, 728-729 [2008]; People v Quito, 43 AD3d 411, 412-413 [2007]). The SupremeCourt properly granted [*2]the People's reverse-Batsonapplication (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) with respect to the twochallenged prospective jurors (see People v Scott, 70 AD3d at 979-980; People vBoston, 52 AD3d at 728-729; People v Quito, 43 AD3d at 412-413).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury instructions, on the whole, conveyed thecorrect standard to be employed with respect to the burden of proof, including "reasonabledoubt" (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823 [1995]; People v Coles, 62 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]; People v Love, 37 AD3d 618, 619[2007]; People v Sanchez, 29 AD3d608 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.